If It Makes Sense to Ban Adam Lanza's Gun, What About His Car?

Today (three weeks late!) Sen. Dianne Feinstein finally followed through on her threat to introduce a new federal ban on "assault weapons." Or so news reports claim. So far I have not been able to locate an actual bill, and The Washington Postreports that Feinstein was still fiddling with the text yesterday. There is no link to the bill on Feinstein's website, and the lines at her office are too busy for me to get through, presumably because many other people are wondering where the hell the bill is. So for now all I have to go on is the summary that her office posted in December, plus the details that her aides have divulged to the press.

The bill bans the manufacture and sale of more than 100 guns by name, including the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last month. That may seem emotionally satisfying, but it would have been equally logical to ban the car he drove to the school. After all, had he not been able to reach the school, the massacre never would have happened. Even if the particular model of car that Lanza used to commit his crimes had been unavailable, of course, he could have driven a different, equally effective car. Yet for people who think like Dianne Feinstein, it is inconceivable that such substitution might occur with guns as well as cars.

In addition to the specifically listed guns, Feinstein's bill, like the "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 (which she also sponsored), covers guns that accept detachable magazines and have military-style features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors. But while a rifle needed two military-style features to qualify as an "assault weapon" under the old law, it needs only one under the new bill. That might count as an improvement if these features had anything to do with the ability to kill defenseless schoolchildren and moviegoers, but they don't. Judging from her office's summary, here are the features Feinstein considers especially menacing: pistol grips, folding stocks, thumbhole stocks, and grenade launchers (not very useful unless you have grenades, which are already illegal for civilians).

This sort of legislation makes sense only to people who don't understand what it does. The folks at CNN, for example, who put this headline on their story about Feinstein's press conference: "Feinstein Proposes New Ban on Some Assault Weapons." Since "assault weapons" are defined by law, how is it possible for the law that defines them to cover only some while missing others? In case that's not confusing enough, CNN adds that "not all of the weapons in the bill meet the technical definition of assault weapons." What "technical definition"? It can't be Feinstein's, since any gun covered by her bill is an "assault weapon" by (arbitrary) definition. Maybe CNN corresponents Dana Bash and Tom Cohen mean that Feinstein's definition is different from Connecticut's, which is essentially the same as the old federal definition; or California's, which is broader; or New York's, which is based on a somewhat different list of military-style features. More likely, they do not know what they mean. Evidence for the latter conclusion:

Supporters of more gun control acknowledge the constitutional right to bear arms, but argue that rifles capable of firing multiple rounds automatically or semi-automatically exceed the reasonable needs of hunters and other gun enthusiasts.

It is amazing that, a quarter of a century after California passed the first "assault weapon" ban, journalists who cover this issue still think such laws are 1) aimed at machine guns, 2) aimed at all semiautomatics, or 3) both, as Bash and Cohen seem to believe. But maybe we should not be too hard on them. After all, President Obama, who supports Feinstein's bill, suffers from a similar misconception.

Even if you accept Feinstein's false premise that there is something especially assaulty or murdery about the guns she wants to ban, her bill would not actually get rid of them, since millions of existing "assault weapons" would remain in circulation. Feinstein says her aim is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time." But guns are durable products that remain usable for decades, not a puddle that evaporates when the sun comes up. Feinstein claims her bill will "help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities." How exactly will it do that?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

224 responses to “If It Makes Sense to Ban Adam Lanza's Gun, What About His Car?”

The bill bans the manufacture and sale of more than 100 guns by name, including the Bushmaster rifle that Adam Lanza used to murder 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last month.

So… the exact same guns sold under a different name would still be legal? Say, a “Bushnaster” XM15?

If Adam Lanza didn’t have a flash suppressor, those 1st graders would still be alive today. They could have tackled him while changing mags if there were a 10 round limit, too. Or at least grabbed onto his legs. [/sarcasm]

Actually I might support a storage requirement for semiauto weapons with muzzle energy higher than 1600 joules or something. If it came in return to relaxing some of the stupid federal gun laws like GFSZs covering 99% of every large city, foregrips on pistols being banned, etc.

I remember during the last assault weapons debate under Clinton, Feinstein said that the reason pistol grips should be outlawed is because they allow the shooter to fire from the hip. Yea, because firing from the hip is so much more lethal than using the god damn sights. And people called Sara Palin an idiot. I wouldn’t want Palin on my Jeopardy team but she’s sure as hells not as dumb as Feinstein who the media fawns over.

Actually I might support a storage requirement for semiauto weapons with muzzle energy higher than 1600 joules or something.

Then you are a fool.

First, of course, I am curious about requiring that you keep your guns in a certain, state-approved way doesn’t infringe your right to keep arms.

Second, of course, such a requirement would do nothing to prevent the criminal use of guns, and could significantly impair their effectiveness for self-defense.

Oh, you think Lanza couldn’t have gotten to the guns if they’d been locked up? That a guy bent on mass murder and matricide would have gone back to his room if Mom hadn’t given him the combination after he asked nicely?

Apparently Adam Lanza initially had driven to the high school, but decided to go to the elementary school after seeing a police cruiser in the parking lot. Definitely bolsters the NRA’s argument, even if it was likely only made as a diversion tactic.

I thought it had been shown that his mother had no connection to the school. If details lile that are still unclear to the general public, how is anyone supposed to make an informed decision about anything related to it? Yes, yes, I know: the last thing the opportunists want is an informed decision.

It is amazing that, a quarter of a century after California passed the first “assault weapon” ban, journalists who cover this issue still think such laws are 1) aimed at machine guns, 2) aimed at all semiautomatics, or 3) both

Most journalists are fucking morons. I mean drooling fucking morons, and viciously partisan to boot.

Just go read a media article on something you are very knowledgeable on, John. The epic stupidity and complete misunderstanding of the subject matter that is par for the course in most articles is off the charts. Journalists are made stupider by the fact that they think they aren’t stupid, in fact they may even think they’re smart.

MSN says the IRS losing that lawsuit is terrible for everyone, quotes “a Washington lobbyist who represents some tax preparers” and the Chief Tax Officer of Jackson-Hewitt. I actually laughed out loud at this garbage.

All gun control is contingent upon the premise that black markets can be prevented or controlled. As long as there is a viable black market, gun control fails. Therefore every gun control effort that fails to destroy every gun in existence is doomed to fail. I have to believe they know this. The idea is for these efforts to fail because when they fail, they have justification for more controls. And the more controls they have, the more of their political opponents they can make into criminals.

There’s a black market for contract murders too. Does that mean we repeal laws against murder?

You confuse the harm with the means. Sure there is a black market for murders. And certainly the law against murder doesn’t prevent all murder. But since murder, unlike owning a gun is an actual harm that demands justice, we are still okay punishing murderers even though we will never eradicate murder.

The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

The entire drug war shows that statement to be a complete lie. We have spent 70 years and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make drugs less available, yet drugs are more available today than they have ever been.

As available as drugs are, you still have to try to find them. I went several years without touching the wacky weed in part because after leaving the restaurant industry (I firmly believe that there does not exist a restaurant with at least one drug dealer in the kitchen or dish pit) I had no where to find the stuff. Then I caught my neighbor smoking it.

I still couldn’t find hard drugs, even if I wanted to. It’s difficult to be a casual hard drug user because you’ve got to be part of the culture to even find the stuff.

So yeah, more gun control would make guns less available than they are now, but they would still be available.

They would be available to anyone determined enough to commit a crime with one. And that is all that matters. That the odd law abiding citizen could no longer get one would make no difference to the rate of gun crimes.

I think it would make some difference to the rate of gun crimes. But a lot of them would probably be replaced with knife crimes or plain old beatings. I think that looking at other countries that have more or less banned guns bears this out. Hard core criminals will still get guns if they want them. But the guy who murders his cheating wife, or whatever, will probably find some other means.

But whatever the effect would be is beside the point. Being able to arm yourself is a very important right and defense against tyranny.

I meant assuming that they actually make it difficult to get a gun and reduce the number of guns available significantly. This would mean an outright ban on guns, not anything that is remotely likely to pass. Which would require a lot of confiscation, which is not going to happen.

Sarc, I work in an office downtown and I have been offered several different “Hard drugs” at office parties.You could easily find hard drugs if you wanted to. It’s incredibly easy to be a casual hard drug user because there are so many other casual hard drug users. You just have to get close enough to people for them to trust you to not get them arrested or fired. Barging in on political discussions and letting slip that you’re a libertarian usually does the trick.

I’m not in government, but I’m close enough to it that any talk of drugs outside of “the shit rots your brain,” “we need to live in a moral society” or “execute the motherfuckers” draws suspicion. Outlandish talk like “if someone own their own body, what business is it of government to tell them what they may or may not consume?” outside NYC soda bans will draw curious glances of the unfriendly kind.

We have spent 70 years and hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make drugs less available, yet drugs are more available today than they have ever been.

Why I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think that’s true. There would be far more people using drugs if they were legal; there would be far more drugs available if they were legal. Think two types of bathtub gin in 1932 versus a bar with a 100 craft beers on tap today.

Prohibition works by raising prices, lowering quality and limiting choice / competition even before you get to the violence required to enforce it. Saying that prohibition doesn’t do those things makes it seem like there is no reason to get rid of it.

This is not necessarily true. Portugal decriminalized pretty much all drugs in 2000, and their usage rate has stayed flat. To this day, a higher percentage of people in the United States use cocaine than people in Portugal smoke pot.

As far as your bathtub gin analogy you are just plain wrong. There were far more than 2 varieties because every rum runner and bathtub brewer had their own recipe or their own particular method. So what you got was a complete clusterfuck when it came to quality control and taste. And not just from dealer to dealer but in batch to batch. What might have been great Gin in batch 1 will make you go blind in batch 2.

There are far fewer types of Gin out there now, just more labels.

The statement that there would be more drugs available is also patently false. Do you think anyone would be messing with crappy, headache inducing fake marijuana of the real thing weren’t prohibited? Prohibition created K2 and bath salts.

Not really. It’s about access. It doesn’t matter if there a thousand types of gin if it is illegal. The average person is going to be limited to the few types of gin they can access through contacts (and it will be an inconsistent product) and to the fact that much of it is shitty.

Here’s the point: Imagine a six pack of beer. If you had to know somebody that knew somebody to find any six pack of beer, and you couldn’t ask most of the people you know if they knew that someone who could get you that pack of beer, and when you did find someone that could sell you that beer, you had to go over to their house with way more money than the six pack should be worth and buy it from someone who either is a cop or a risk-taking individual to be in the business of breaking the law everyday, and that beer is a completely random style of beer and you could only dimly perceive the quality of that particular six pack (and you knew that you’d probably never get to buy that same brand of six-pack every again) and then you had to carefully drive home to draw the shades and consume it in private or with a few select people, all while worried that an asshole neighbor or a passerby would smell the open beer and call the police.

How many six packs of beer are you going to buy compared to being able to go to a big liquor store, with a huge selection, where no one bats an eye if you swing by and get one for 1/6th the price?

The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.

And even if you believe banning will do that, all efforts short of banning will produce something less than that. Therefore, all efforts less than outright banning will “fail” and just be used as justification for something closer to and finally amounting to an outright ban.

That is the whole point I am making Tulpa. These people will never be satisfied until there is an outright ban of all weapons and anything they propose is going to later be deemed a failure and justification for more control. That is why any compromise with them is foolish.

Let’s not forget 2chilly’s article with the run down of the official figures of unreported possession of weapons in Europe being magnitudes higher than popularly assumed. In cultures where people are not prone to bow to emperor and samurai, banning is not effective.

However, that is the aspect of our culture proglodytes are bent on changing. Those of us who know our weapons, how to build them, care for them, accurately shoot them are not their idea of model citizens. We possess forbidden knowledge.

“The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available.”

I thought the purpose of gun control was to decrease violence (or at least gun violence). And that’s crucial, because to accomplish that it must make it very hard for people who would use guns violently to get them. Simply decreasing the number of guns from 100M to 50M, or whatever, won’t do if it’s just as easy for a potentially violent person to get a gun.

Also, the black market for contract murders is not a good analogy. We prohibit murders because they are wrong in themselves, and because we think it’s appropriate to punish a person that does such a wrong. We’d continue to outlaw murder even if criminologists told us that jail sentences didn’t deter any murders. No one, to my knowledge, thinks that owning a gun is wrong in itself. The purpose of gun control laws is to achieve a secondary purpose of removing a means of committing violence. That is, their only purpose is deterence. And if they can’t be justified as effective deterrence, then they are useless.

“There’s a black market for contract murders too. Does that mean we repeal laws against murder”

No because murder is actually harming a person, possessing any prohibited object in and of itself harms no one.

“The point of gun control isn’t to make all guns disappear, it’s to decrease the number of guns available. And banning will do that.”

Your evidence for this VERY dubious assertion? Alcohol was more frequently available during prohibition, Same with drugs today.

I am unaware of a single instance in recorded history where a law against possession of something which is in demand by the populace was effective in reducing the supply of that thing.

Hell given what I have seen on the subject I would be completely unsurprised if the supply of contract killers is higher today in a world where murder is illegal than it would be in a world where there were no laws against murder, it is just that in either world the market for contract killers is extremely small.

“Christfag” is the term you’re searching for. And I’ll take this pointy-headed rector’s cry of “moral duty” seriously, when he tells the tyrants on the Hill about their “moral duty” to preserve the rights and liberties of the American people.

When it comes to “separation of Church and State”, Jefferson was the wisest man to ever live. When it comes to keeping and bearing arms, and that the tree of liberty must, on occasion be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, he’s a dead white slaveowner who couldn’t have possibly foreseen automatic and semi-automatic mass killy weapons that come in the dreaded color of MILITARY BLACK.

Separation of church and state refers to someone else’s church. Progs routinely justify entitlements and Obamacare on the basis of WWJD. Never mind the blatant rewrite of both the First Amendment and the New Testament.

You need to ban good things too just in case someone might use a good thing to do bad think. I mean who doesn’t love candy canes but they can be turned into ice pick like weapons rather easily. And who “needs” a candy cane anyway.

The Mars Bar was a very effective piece of demonizing. Way out there. It was so overdone, with such malicious twisting of the facts. Mick retrieving a Mars Bar from my vagina, indeed! It was far too jaded for any of us even to have conceived of. It’s a dirty old man’s fantasy — some old fart who goes to a dominatrix every Thursday afternoon to get spanked. A cop’s idea of what people do on acid!

We need to get back to some common sense regulation, namely that one must yell “They’re coming right at us!” before firing any gun. This only covers the shooter for up to 3 rounds, at which time they must yell it again before resuming firing.

Gun control is the left’s equivalent of the abortion issue. They don’t have a chance in hell of enacting anything with teeth, so it makes a very effective tool to continuously agitate the true believers enough to open up their wallets and keep them voting the right way.

“Feinstein claims her bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities.”

It’s funny how the media never calls out these liberals to prove their affirmative condition claims about such things.

After all, the burden of proof of such things is supposed to be on those claiming affirmative conditions. No one is required to prove a negative.

The lapdog press acts as if the burden were exactly the opposite – on this issue and pretty much all the rest of the left wing litany of affirmative condition claims about government intervention “solving” all sorts of problems or making things better.

Contrast that with the treatment given to things like school choice. The fact that school choice doesn’t solve every educational problem in the country is considered proof it is a horrible idea. In contrast, any proposal for gun control, no matter how crackpot and unlikely to work is considered sacred because we must do something.

I preface by saying both Bush and Obama are mere puppets of big banks and the military industrial complex. Before Obama became President, people were outraged with Bush on the drone strikes and secret CIA activity. Now that Obama is doing the very same thing, there is silence over the NPR circles. Hypocrisy so thick, you can slice it with a knife…

Seriously. The one time I was tempted to get into a “you don’t need” discussion with a serious liberal I was like, “I can’t actually think of anything this bitch wouldn’t be okay with banning.” Really.

I mean, everyone wants to get rid of something, right? I’d love to give the death penalty to anyone who ever plays “Friends in Low Places” again. I mean, just fucking shred them to pieces and make their kids watch. But I don’t advocate it. I have principles and people are entitled to have the shittiest taste in music fucking imaginable if they so wish.

I bet she doesn’t like trucks. Or “gas guzzlers” or SUVs that “no one needs.”

Well,..except for the fleet of trucks needed to haul all of her shit to her next taxpayer/lobbyist funded junket. The SUVs needed to transport her crew of gunmen and mercenaries security detail with her on a daily basis, but otherwise….

Feinstein claims her bill will “help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities.” How exactly will it do that?

Maybe she thinks that by making it harder for law abiding citizens to defend themselves future mass killers won’t even bother because it will too easy. I mean, they wouldn’t even be able to get the slightest adrenaline rush because it would be a little too much like shooting fish in a barrel, so they won’t even bother because it will be too boring.

“That may seem emotionally satisfying, but it would have been equally logical to ban the car he drove to the school. After all, had he not been able to reach the school, the massacre never would have happened. Even if the particular model of car that Lanza used to commit his crimes had been unavailable, of course, he could have driven a different, equally effective car. Yet for people who think like Dianne Feinstein, it is inconceivable that such substitution might occur with guns as well as cars.”

Ugh. Arguments this bad flourish on both sides of this argument. Inapt analogies like this one and Tulpa’s above make if very difficult to discuss this topic.

Here’s a poignant, thought-provoking argument from another statist twat on NPR concerning the “assault” weapons ban:

JP H These weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment (otherwise, we’d have to let people own stinger missiles and grenade launchers), and they are not reasonably needed for hunting or self-defense. I have yet to see a single news story from a credible source where someone needed to use one of these weapons to defend themselves and could not have used a shotgun that could shoot 10 bullets. I hear people enjoy shooting these guns at ranges. You know, your right to enjoy dangerous toys does not exceed the right of people to survive mass shootings. These weapons make it extremely easy to shoot large numbers of people in a short amount of time, and thus make it easier for mass shooters to kill more people. Banning their sale and transfer will not stop mass shooters; they’ll just kill less people.

The lack of critical-thinking skills completely eludes these mongoloids.

Well one could be a smartass and say he didn’t run them over, but vehicular homicide and road deaths do occur quite often. We all know speed kills, so why do you need a hot rod? Enforce national speed limits of 15 mph and be done with it.

We have historical proof “assault weapon” bans do not stop criminals from committing crimes or spree shootings:

1. The Columbine massacre occurred during the ’94 federal “assault weapon” ban. The killers were not only not old enough to legally buy weapons but they managed to kill dozens without an “assault weapon” 2. The North Hollywood Shootout occurred in the middle of the ’94 federal “assault weapon” ban. Not only did the criminals use AK-47s but they also broke a nearly 80 year-old law against fully automatic weapons 3. The Virginia Tech killer murdered unimpeded at will using only pistols and a backpack full of magazines 4. The murderer at Sandy Hill Elementary was too young to legally buy any of the weapons he used, so he stole them. As has been pointed out the AR he allegedly used was legally purchased in Connecticut by the murderer’s mother despite there being a state law banning “assault weapons”. 5. Here in California where Feinstein outlawed “assault weapons” 24 years ago, just two weeks ago during a high-speed freeway chase a passenger in the getaway car fired at pursuing police with an AK-47.

Hey! They can’t do that! Don’t these criminals know they are breaking laws? I guess passing more laws will fix the problems of people breaking existing ones.